A leaked draft of the European Commission’s proposed Tobacco Tax Directive has sent shockwaves across public health and policy communities. Among its most controversial measures: an unprecedented tax hike on nicotine pouches—Sweden’s leading tool in its harm reduction strategy. The plan suggests increasing the tax on pouches in Sweden by over 650%, from 207 SEK/kg to roughly 1,560 SEK/kg—a move that would add nearly 25 SEK to each can.
While the Commission frames the proposal as part of its broader Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, critics argue it could seriously undermine smoking cessation progress, push users back to cigarettes, and damage national harm reduction models like Sweden’s.
Sweden’s Red Line: A Science-Backed Rejection
Sweden has been clear and united in its opposition. Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson stated plainly: “The proposal circulating is completely unacceptable to the Swedish government.” Sweden is prepared to veto the directive if necessary—a move that, due to EU unanimity rules on excise legislation, would stop the proposal in its tracks.
Sweden’s stance is based on three core principles:
- Tax According to Risk
Sweden believes nicotine taxes should be based on relative harm—lower taxes on non-combustible, reduced-risk products like snus and pouches; higher taxes on deadly cigarettes. - Preserve National Sovereignty
The government insists that taxation policy must remain a national competence, not dictated by a Brussels-led one-size-fits-all framework. - Defend Proven Results
Sweden has the lowest smoking rate in the EU and 44% fewer tobacco-related deaths than the EU average. It attributes this success to its risk-proportionate taxation and harm reduction model.
A Smoke-Free Success vs. a Uniform Taxation Model
Sweden’s model—encouraging switching through access and affordability—has made it the first EU country to reach “smoke-free” status (under 5% daily smoking prevalence). The public health results speak for themselves:
- 41% lower overall cancer rates
- Lowest rates of tobacco-related diseases in Europe
- A massive shift from cigarettes to snus and nicotine pouches over the decades
Even the Commission’s own impact assessment acknowledges Sweden’s success and risk-differentiated approach—yet the proposed directive contradicts it entirely.
A Dangerous Precedent
Treating low-risk nicotine products like cigarettes through uniform excise taxes is not only scientifically unsound but counterproductive. It flattens the risk continuum, removes the incentive to switch, and threatens to undo years of progress.
Health advocates and harm reduction experts have warned that such heavy-handed tax policy could:
- Drive users back to combustibles
- Spark illicit trade and cross-border purchases
- Undermine public trust in evidence-based regulation
GINN’s Position: Don’t Punish Progress
GINN supports taxation frameworks that are proportionate, science-based, and designed to protect—not penalize—switchers. We echo Sweden’s call for:
- Risk-based taxation that distinguishes between combustible and non-combustible products
- Protection of national policy autonomy, especially for countries with successful public health models
- Recognition of harm reduction as a legitimate, effective pillar of tobacco control
Sweden’s approach works. Any EU directive that ignores this data and penalizes lower-risk alternatives would not only fail to achieve its health goals—it would risk reversing historic public health gains.
Respect What Works
With a “tobacco-free generation” targeted by 2040, Europe must choose wisely. Sweden has already demonstrated what’s possible—low smoking rates, fewer deaths, and healthier communities—through a policy built on real-world outcomes, not ideology.
As discussions in Brussels continue, GINN urges EU policymakers to respect national models, prioritize evidence over uniformity, and protect the rights of adults who choose safer alternatives.
Don’t punish success. Learn from it.
